Eileen Eika M.

Dela Cruz

POLITICAL LAW

FLORD NICSON CALAWAG VS. UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES VISAYAS AND DEAN
CARLOS C BAYLON
GR NO. 207412
AUGUST 7, 2013
FACTS:
The petitioner enrolled in the Master of Science in Fisheries Biology at UP Visayas under a scholarship
from the Department of Science and Technology-Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research
and Development. He finished his first year of study with good grades, and thus was eligible to start their
thesis tentative in the first semester of their second year. The petitioner then enrolled in the thesis
program, drafted their tentative thesis titles, and obtained the consent of Dr. Rex Balena to be their thesis
adviser. These details were enclosed in the letters the petitioner sent to Dean Baylon, asking him to
approve the composition of their thesis committees. The letter contained the thesis committee members
and the thesis advisers approval of their titles, as well as the approval of Professor Roman Sanares, the
director of the Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanology.
Upon receipt of the petitioners letters, Dean Baylon questioned the propriety of the thesis topics with the
colleges graduate degree program. He disapproved the composition of the petitioners thesis committees
and their tentative thesis topics. According to him, the thesis titles connote a historical and social
dimension study which is not appropriate for the petitioners chosen masters degree. He ordered the
petitioner to submit a two-page proposal containing an outline of their tentative thesis titles and informed
them that he is forming an ad hoc committee that would take over the role of the adviser and of the thesis
committees.
The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the RTC asking it to order Dean Baylon
to approve and constitute the petitioners thesis committee and approve of their thesis titles. The petitioner
also asked the RTC to issue a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against Dean Baylon and order
him to perform such acts while the suit was pending.
ISSUE: Whether or not to grant the petitioners request for writ of preliminary mandatory injunction
HELD:
No. To be entitled to a writ of preliminary injunction, the petitioner must establish the ff requisites: a) the
invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial; b) the right of the complainant is
clear and unmistakeable; and c) there is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious
damage. The issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction justifies only in a clear case, free
form doubt and dispute. When the complainants right is thus doubtful, or disputed, he does not have a
clear legal right and therefore, the issuance of injunctive relief is improper. The right to education invoked
by Calawag cannot be made the basis for issuing a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. The right to
education is not absolute. Section 5 e, Article XIV of the Constitution provides that every citizen has a
right to select a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and
academic requirements. The thesis requirement and the compliance with the procedures leading to it, are
part of the reasonable academic requirements a person desiring to complete a course of study would have
to comply with.